Computational Cognitive Morphosemantics Modeling morphological compositionality in Hebrew verbs with Embodied Construction Grammar Nathan Schneider ~ BLS 36 ~ 7 February 2010 http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~nschneid/bls36-slides.pdf 1
Overview • An analysis of Hebrew verbs linking cognitive semantics to complex morphological constructions ‣ Must account for compositionality as well as idiosyncrasy • Cast within the ECG formalism to facilitate computational processing ‣ Previously, ECG was only used for syntax 2
meaning 3
meaning bon ɛ bona הֶנוֺבֽהָנוֺבֽ morphologically complex forms (e.g. Hebrew verbs) 3
meaning construction LANGUAGE USE IN grammar PROGRESS bon ɛ bona הֶנוֺבֽהָנוֺבֽ morphologically complex forms (e.g. Hebrew verbs) 3
meaning construction LANGUAGE USE IN grammar PROGRESS bon ɛ bona הֶנוֺבֽהָנוֺבֽ morphologically complex forms (e.g. Hebrew verbs) 3
meaning formal representation construction LANGUAGE USE IN grammar PROGRESS bon ɛ bona הֶנוֺבֽהָנוֺבֽ morphologically complex forms (e.g. Hebrew verbs) 3
meaning formal representation construction LANGUAGE USE IN grammar PROGRESS bon ɛ bona הֶנוֺבֽהָנוֺבֽ automatic analysis procedure morphologically complex forms (e.g. Hebrew verbs) 3
Construction Grammar for Hebrew Verb Morphology • Challenges: ‣ Nonconcatenative morphology ‣ Semantics of roots, paradigms, and verbs (whether compositional or idiosyncratic) • I will use Embodied Construction Grammar, a formalism designed to support computational analysis and simulation of sentences 4
Construction Grammar • In the family of cognitive theories known as Construction Grammar, there is no separation between lexicon and grammar • Words, lexical categories, multiword expressions, syntactic phrases, idioms all form-meaning pairs: constructions, albeit with different levels of generality • Usage-based theories of grammar: constructions may be stored redundantly in memory (“constructicon”); sensitive to factors such as frequency e.g.: [Fillmore et al. 1988] [Kay & Fillmore 1999] [Goldberg 1995, 2006] [Langacker 1990] [Croft 2001] [Tomasello 2003] 5
Other Related Work Formal Approaches to Semitic/Nonconcatenative Morphology [McCarthy 1979] proposed an autosegmental analysis for the root-pattern morphology of Arabic. [Finkel & Stump 2002] used inheritance in the KATR formalism to describe Hebrew verb forms. For other approaches to nonconcatenative morphology, see [Orgun 1996] [Rubba 2001] [Roark & Sproat 2007] . Morphology in Construction Grammar Previous work has described composition of morphological constructions [Riehemann 1998] [Booij 2005, 2007] [Gurevich 2006] . Several mechanisms for adding morphology to ECG were entertained in [Bergen 2003] , but none were implemented. [Rubba 1993] (synopsis in [Rubba 2001] ) takes a Cognitive Grammar approach to nonconcatenative morphology, situating words in a network (cf. [Bybee 1985, 2001] ). Two other relevant approaches to phonology are found in [Inkelas 2008] and [Nathan 2007] . [Mandelblit 1997] offers an extensive semantic account of Hebrew verb paradigms. 6 There has been a great deal of formal work on Semitic morphology using a variety of approaches, including rules, autosegmental phonology, and unification grammars. There has also been some work on morphology in Construction Grammar and related theories. To my knowledge, this is the first work to explicitly combine detailed semantic representations from cognitive linguistics in a formal description of morphological constructions.
e.g. [Berman 1978] 7 Key claim: The grammar has morphological constructions at multiple levels, all of which contribute to the form and meaning of the composite word.
g n b R OOT e.g. [Berman 1978] 7 Key claim: The grammar has morphological constructions at multiple levels, all of which contribute to the form and meaning of the composite word.
g n b e.g. [Berman 1978] 7 Key claim: The grammar has morphological constructions at multiple levels, all of which contribute to the form and meaning of the composite word.
S TEM hi i g n b e.g. [Berman 1978] 7 Key claim: The grammar has morphological constructions at multiple levels, all of which contribute to the form and meaning of the composite word.
hi i g n b e.g. [Berman 1978] 7 Key claim: The grammar has morphological constructions at multiple levels, all of which contribute to the form and meaning of the composite word.
u I NFLECTION hi i g n b e.g. [Berman 1978] 7 Key claim: The grammar has morphological constructions at multiple levels, all of which contribute to the form and meaning of the composite word.
u hi i g n b e.g. [Berman 1978] 7 Key claim: The grammar has morphological constructions at multiple levels, all of which contribute to the form and meaning of the composite word.
Root /g/ ▫ /n/ ▫ /b/ ▫ /b/ ~ ‘steal’ Paradigm Hif’il (P5) Meaning ‘smuggle in’ Tense/Num Past m Past f Present m Present f Future m Future f 1.sg hignav hignav ti ʔ agniv ʔ agniv 2.sg hignav ta hignav t t agniv t agniv i magniv magniv a 3.sg higniv higniv a y agniv t agniv 1.pl hignav hignav nu n agniv n agniv 2.pl hignav tem hignav ten t agniv t agniv u magniv im magniv ot 3.pl higniv u higniv y agniv u y agniv 8
• A single stem for each root/paradigm/tense : here past /hignib/ *, present /magnib/ , future /agnib/ The root fits into a pattern: /hi ◦◦ i ◦ / , /ma ◦◦ i ◦ / , /a ◦◦ i ◦ / • Affixes specifying person, gender, and number—not sensitive to paradigm : /-ti/ , /-im/ , /t- -u/ , etc. Root /g/ ▫ /n/ ▫ /b/ ▫ /b/ ~ ‘steal’ Paradigm Hif’il (P5) Meaning ‘smuggle in’ Tense/Num Past m Past f Present m Present f Future m Future f 1.sg hignav hignav ti ʔ agniv ʔ agniv 2.sg hignav ta hignav t t agniv t agniv i magniv magniv a 3.sg higniv higniv a y agniv t agniv 1.pl hignav nu hignav n agniv n agniv 2.pl hignav tem hignav ten t agniv t agniv u magniv im magniv ot 3.pl higniv u higniv y agniv u y agniv 8
• A single stem for each root/paradigm/tense : here past /hignib/ *, present /magnib/ , future /agnib/ The root fits into a pattern: /hi ◦◦ i ◦ / , /ma ◦◦ i ◦ / , /a ◦◦ i ◦ / • Affixes specifying person, gender, and number—not sensitive to paradigm : /-ti/ , /-im/ , /t- -u/ , etc. Root /g/ ▫ /n/ ▫ /b/ ▫ /b/ ~ ‘steal’ Paradigm Hif’il (P5) Meaning ‘smuggle in’ Tense/Num Past m Past f Present m Present f Future m Future f 1.sg hignav hignav ti ʔ agniv ʔ agniv 2.sg hignav ta hignav t t agniv t agniv i magniv magniv a 3.sg higniv higniv a y agniv t agniv 1.pl hignav hignav nu n agniv n agniv 2.pl hignav tem hignav ten t agniv t agniv u magniv im magniv ot 3.pl higniv higniv u y agniv y agniv u • For brevity, assume some phonological details are handled elsewhere: Consonant allophony: /b/ is sometimes realized as [v], /k/ as [x], and /p/ as [f] Certain root consonants (e.g. / ʔ /, /w/, /h/) will affect the pattern in systematic ways Stress-sensitive vowel reduction and deletion * The last vowel in this paradigm’s past tense stem undergoes the phonological change /i/ → [a] in 1st & 2nd person 8
Morphological Generalizations: Stored or Inferred? • I will present general morphological constructions as if they are stored in the lexicon along with all other constructions. • However, some approaches to morphology claim that no constructions below the word level are stored in memory; rather, an online process of distributed analogy is hypothesized to account for morphological productivity. [Gurevich 2006] ‣ For those taking this view, the generalizations presented here can be interpreted as formalizing an online analogical process. 9
Paradigms ( Binyanim ) P Traditional Transitivity: /g/ ▫ /n/ ▫ /b/ Verbs 3 Characterization 1 always (often) always (often) 2 Hebrew Gloss 1 “Simple” (Transitive) ganav ‘steal’ 2 “Refl., passive” Intrans. (Passive) nignav ‘be stolen’ 3 “Intensive” (Transitive) ginev ‘steal repeatedly’ (lit.) 4 “Intensive Passive” Passive gunav ‘be stolen/taken stealthily’ (lit.) 5 “Causative” (Transitive) higniv ‘smuggle in, insert stealthily’ 6 “Causative Passive” Passive hugnav ‘be smuggled in/inserted stealthily’ 7 “Reflexive-passive” Intrans. (Passive) hitganev ‘sneak (in, out, or away)’ 1. [Halkin 1970] 2. [Arad 2005] 3. [Bolozky 1996] • The root /g/ ▫ /n/ ▫ /b/ is one which manifests itself in all seven paradigms, though its P3 and P4 verbs are limited to literary usage. 10
Paradigm Semantics • There is a lot of idiosyncrasy in the meanings of verbs within the various binyanim. That is, the verb’s meaning is often not completely predictable from the root and paradigm. • Mandelblit [1997] attacks this problem under the rubric of grammatical blending [Fauconnier & Turner 1996] ‣ She concludes that the different paradigms arise from a construed causal relationship, which explains the prototypical semantics 11
Recommend
More recommend
